No, not THAT PC, but there was a definite showing of Public Concern. Not a very elegant way to say it, but it was very nice nonetheless. Besides the points made that clearly had the public's interest in mind when discussing urbanization, the Commission also briefly discussed citizen involvement as their role as the Citizen Involvement Commission. (Two Commissioners for the price of one last night!).
As the planning meeting progressed, the commission engaged in a thorough discussion on annexation - when was annexation appropriate, land owner choice, the cost of providing services to newly annexed properties and the cost to annexed properties to hook up to city utilities and pay utility fees for something they were getting essentially for free (sewer) in the past.
Annexation might be a plus property owners when their septic system fails and they are facing the prospect of putting in a new one, or when the land is to be partitioned for [infill] development. But for homeowners who living in the unincorporated parts of the Urban Service District (USB), this could carry a significant cost that makes an affordable home and lifestyle commensurately unaffordable.
When discussing urbanization outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), the Commissioners were concerned with how development in the Stafford area would impact Lake Oswego - principally roads and utilities. McVey and Stafford might bring lines of cars trying to get onto Hwy. 43 overwhelming neighborhood collector streets. They suggested that developers pay the full cost of development if and when they requested services from Lake Oswego: Currently Lake Oswego's SDCs (System Development Charges) do not cover the full cost of development.
PS: My comments about the Stafford Hamlet were countered with the Commission's concern's about how future development there would impact LO. This concern is wholly appropriate and I am glad
they are thinking about this. My concern is that local jurisdictions be allowed to make their own plans on future development independently of an overseer like Metro.
In fact, one Commissioner, Adrianne Brockman, recalled that in the past when CRAG (Columbis Region Association of Governments) managed regional affairs, it was an assembly of local elected officials who brought their concerns to the table and worked the out problems as individual jurisdictions using their own staff. Currently METRO has umpteen staff members working on plans that seem to be quite different than what individual jurisdictions want. Instead of our local elected officials speaking for us, they are relegated to a representative committee, if they get that opportunity at all! In many ways, CRAG was a better model for giving cities a say in how they developed.